>Greenpeace has called for an investigation into a potential cover-up of a nuclear accident after Russia’s nuclear agency had denied European reports of increased ruthenium-106 levels. Rosgidromet, the weather monitoring service, released test data on Monday that showed levels were indeed much higher than normal. The most potent site was Argayash in the south Urals, where levels were 986 times the norm.

>Argayash is about 20 miles from Mayak, a facility that reprocesses spent nuclear fuel. The plant facility issued a denial on Tuesday. “The contamination of the atmosphere with ruthenium-106 isotope registered by Rosgidromet is not linked to the activity of Mayak,” a statement said.

>It went on to reassure people that the measurements were well below dangerous levels: “The measurements which Rosgidromet has released suggest that the dose people might have received is 20,000 times less than the allowed annual dose and presents no threat at all to health.”

>>117673>Russia has a history of covering up their fuckups.
Since Europe has taken a course to become nuclear-free, every progressive media has already assumed that Europe is already nuclear-free indeed, and anything that is radioactive can only come from east - despite the fact that winds in Europe never fucking blow from Urals.

Any actual nuclear incident usually involves hundreds of highly-radioactive isotopes released simultaneously in notable amount, but for illiterate "journalists" only one of them is enough to sow panic. It's too easy, anyway, with modern educational standards nobody has even slightest idea what radioactivity is.

>Ruthenium 106 has been detected in late September by several European networks involved in the monitoring of atmospheric radioactive contamination, at levels of a few milliBecquerels per cubic meter of air.

>Based on the meteorological conditions provided by Météo France and the measurement results available in European countries, IRSN carried out simulations to locate the release zone, to assess the quantity of ruthenium released, as well as the period and the duration of the release.

>few milliBecquerels per cubic meter of air

This was the initial story, anyway, and it basically means that the stunning map OP displayed was pulled out of their asses on the basis of data sample that amounts to mouse fart.

What the fuck are you smoking? There are still some extremely pro-nuclear countries in euroland. Don't make sweeping generalizations like that. You make it sound like it's been decided for an entire continent.

>and it basically means that the stunning map OP displayed was pulled out of their asses on the basis of data sample that amounts to mouse fart.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Doesn't change the fact that partial releases and detections are important things to monitor.
After all, it took us forever to figure out Chernobyl. I was literally playing in my backyard when the supposed fallout swept over my country. It's have been nice if we could have known before that happened.

>>117677>There are still some extremely pro-nuclear countries in euroland.
I'm aware of that, but we are talking about "progressive media", which usually exist in their own separate reality.

>After all, it took us forever to figure out Chernobyl. I was literally playing in my backyard when the supposed fallout swept over my country.
When considering effects that aren't immediately obvious, the real harm of radioactivity is a very debatable matter. There's enough chemicals, dust, pollution in the air that affect people so much more severely, but because 30 years of radiophobia promotion, even slightest outbreak becomes huge news and a motive to blame somebody.

When people remember radioactivity they usually talk about Chernobyl, but in reality, there's dozen of places that had enough radiation outbreak to endanger health of civilian population. I should know better, I've seen one myself. Radioactive fallout effects of Chernobyl exaggerated by thousands of times.

>For this reason, Arutyunian says, the population does not show and cannot show any signs of radiological effects except for the already mentioned thyroid gland cancer. According to specialists at the Radiation Medicine Research Center under Ukraine’s Academy of Medical Science, of the 2.34 million people resident in the contaminated areas of Ukraine about 94,800 died from cancer of various origin over twelve years following the catastrophe; an extra 750 died due to Chernobyl-related cancer.

>It is noteworthy that in 2.8 million people regardless of the place where they live radiation-unrelated cancer kills 4,000 to 6,000 a year, in other words, the rate is 90,000 to 170,000 deaths over 30 years.

By no means it indicates that radioactivity is safe and can be withstood as easily as some people may conclude after nuking the country of Japan two actually three times in a row. The reason these effects are so moderate is that modern safety standards of nuclear energy are as hight as it is reasonably possible.

>>117680>There's enough chemicals, dust, pollution in the air that affect people so much more severely, but because 30 years of radiophobia promotion, even slightest outbreak becomes huge news and a motive to blame somebody.

you are only butthurt because the someone to blame here is you russian non-humans. which practical "chemicals, dust, pollution in the air" does even come close to radiological pollution in it's effects? congratulations btw. you have supplanted Clio as the most cancerous (pun not intended) user here.

>which practical "chemicals, dust, pollution in the air"
As I said before to clarify all dumbass illiterate opinions, there's enough to die from them rather them from some radiation-associated sickness, unless you stick your ass into reactor room and take a deep breath. Now GTFO.